Terms and Conditions

These terms and conditions of use refer to the London Review of Books and the London Review Bookshop website ( — hereafter ‘LRB Website’). These terms and conditions apply to all users of the LRB Website ("you"), including individual subscribers to the print edition of the LRB who wish to take advantage of our free 'subscriber only' access to archived material ("individual users") and users who are authorised to access the LRB Website by subscribing institutions ("institutional users").

Each time you use the LRB Website you signify your acceptance of these terms and conditions. If you do not agree, or are not comfortable with any part of this document, your only remedy is not to use the LRB Website.

  1. By registering for access to the LRB Website and/or entering the LRB Website by whatever route of access, you agree to be bound by the terms and conditions currently prevailing.
  2. The London Review of Books ("LRB") reserves the right to change these terms and conditions at any time and you should check for any alterations regularly. Continued usage of the LRB Website subsequent to a change in the terms and conditions constitutes acceptance of the current terms and conditions.
  3. The terms and conditions of any subscription agreements which educational and other institutions have entered into with the LRB apply in addition to these terms and conditions.
  4. You undertake to indemnify the LRB fully for all losses damages and costs incurred as a result of your breaching these terms and conditions.
  5. The information you supply on registration to the LRB Website shall be accurate and complete. You will notify the LRB promptly of any changes of relevant details by emailing the registrar. You will not assist a non-registered person to gain access to the LRB Website by supplying them with your password. In the event that the LRB considers that you have breached the requirements governing registration, that you are in breach of these terms and conditions or that your or your institution's subscription to the LRB lapses, your registration to the LRB Website will be terminated.
  6. Each individual subscriber to the LRB (whether a person or organisation) is entitled to the registration of one person to use the 'subscriber only' content on the web site. This user is an 'individual user'.
  7. The London Review of Books operates a ‘no questions asked’ cancellation policy in accordance with UK legislation. Please contact us to cancel your subscription and receive a full refund for the cost of all unposted issues.
  8. Use of the 'subscriber only' content on the LRB Website is strictly for the personal use of each individual user who may read the content on the screen, download, store or print single copies for their own personal private non-commercial use only, and is not to be made available to or used by any other person for any purpose.
  9. Each institution which subscribes to the LRB is entitled to grant access to persons to register on and use the 'subscriber only' content on the web site under the terms and conditions of its subscription agreement with the LRB. These users are 'institutional users'.
  10. Each institutional user of the LRB may access and search the LRB database and view its entire contents, and may also reproduce insubstantial extracts from individual articles or other works in the database to which their institution's subscription provides access, including in academic assignments and theses, online and/or in print. All quotations must be credited to the author and the LRB. Institutional users are not permitted to reproduce any entire article or other work, or to make any commercial use of any LRB material (including sale, licensing or publication) without the LRB's prior written permission. Institutions may notify institutional users of any additional or different conditions of use which they have agreed with the LRB.
  11. Users may use any one computer to access the LRB web site 'subscriber only' content at any time, so long as that connection does not allow any other computer, networked or otherwise connected, to access 'subscriber only' content.
  12. The LRB Website and its contents are protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights. You acknowledge that all intellectual property rights including copyright in the LRB Website and its contents belong to or have been licensed to the LRB or are otherwise used by the LRB as permitted by applicable law.
  13. All intellectual property rights in articles, reviews and essays originally published in the print edition of the LRB and subsequently included on the LRB Website belong to or have been licensed to the LRB. This material is made available to you for use as set out in paragraph 8 (if you are an individual user) or paragraph 10 (if you are an institutional user) only. Save for such permitted use, you may not download, store, disseminate, republish, post, reproduce, translate or adapt such material in whole or in part in any form without the prior written permission of the LRB. To obtain such permission and the terms and conditions applying, contact the Rights and Permissions department.
  14. All intellectual property rights in images on the LRB Website are owned by the LRB except where another copyright holder is specifically attributed or credited. Save for such material taken for permitted use set out above, you may not download, store, disseminate, republish, post, reproduce, translate or adapt LRB’s images in whole or in part in any form without the prior written permission of the LRB. To obtain such permission and the terms and conditions applying, contact the Rights and Permissions department. Where another copyright holder is specifically attributed or credited you may not download, store, disseminate, republish, reproduce or translate such images in whole or in part in any form without the prior written permission of the copyright holder. The LRB will not undertake to supply contact details of any attributed or credited copyright holder.
  15. The LRB Website is provided on an 'as is' basis and the LRB gives no warranty that the LRB Website will be accessible by any particular browser, operating system or device.
  16. The LRB makes no express or implied representation and gives no warranty of any kind in relation to any content available on the LRB Website including as to the accuracy or reliability of any information either in its articles, essays and reviews or in the letters printed in its letter page or material supplied by third parties. The LRB excludes to the fullest extent permitted by law all liability of any kind (including liability for any losses, damages or costs) arising from the publication of any materials on the LRB Website or incurred as a consequence of using or relying on such materials.
  17. The LRB excludes to the fullest extent permitted by law all liability of any kind (including liability for any losses, damages or costs) for any legal or other consequences (including infringement of third party rights) of any links made to the LRB Website.
  18. The LRB is not responsible for the content of any material you encounter after leaving the LRB Website site via a link in it or otherwise. The LRB gives no warranty as to the accuracy or reliability of any such material and to the fullest extent permitted by law excludes all liability that may arise in respect of or as a consequence of using or relying on such material.
  19. This site may be used only for lawful purposes and in a manner which does not infringe the rights of, or restrict the use and enjoyment of the site by, any third party. In the event of a chat room, message board, forum and/or news group being set up on the LRB Website, the LRB will not undertake to monitor any material supplied and will give no warranty as to its accuracy, reliability, originality or decency. By posting any material you agree that you are solely responsible for ensuring that it is accurate and not obscene, defamatory, plagiarised or in breach of copyright, confidentiality or any other right of any person, and you undertake to indemnify the LRB against all claims, losses, damages and costs incurred in consequence of your posting of such material. The LRB will reserve the right to remove any such material posted at any time and without notice or explanation. The LRB will reserve the right to disclose the provenance of such material, republish it in any form it deems fit or edit or censor it. The LRB will reserve the right to terminate the registration of any person it considers to abuse access to any chat room, message board, forum or news group provided by the LRB.
  20. Any e-mail services supplied via the LRB Website are subject to these terms and conditions.
  21. You will not knowingly transmit any virus, malware, trojan or other harmful matter to the LRB Website. The LRB gives no warranty that the LRB Website is free from contaminating matter, viruses or other malicious software and to the fullest extent permitted by law disclaims all liability of any kind including liability for any damages, losses or costs resulting from damage to your computer or other property arising from access to the LRB Website, use of it or downloading material from it.
  22. The LRB does not warrant that the use of the LRB Website will be uninterrupted, and disclaims all liability to the fullest extent permitted by law for any damages, losses or costs incurred as a result of access to the LRB Website being interrupted, modified or discontinued.
  23. The LRB Website contains advertisements and promotional links to websites and other resources operated by third parties. While we would never knowingly link to a site which we believed to be trading in bad faith, the LRB makes no express or implied representations or warranties of any kind in respect of any third party websites or resources or their contents, and we take no responsibility for the content, privacy practices, goods or services offered by these websites and resources. The LRB excludes to the fullest extent permitted by law all liability for any damages or losses arising from access to such websites and resources. Any transaction effected with such a third party contacted via the LRB Website are subject to the terms and conditions imposed by the third party involved and the LRB accepts no responsibility or liability resulting from such transactions.
  24. The LRB disclaims liability to the fullest extent permitted by law for any damages, losses or costs incurred for unauthorised access or alterations of transmissions or data by third parties as consequence of visit to the LRB Website.
  25. While 'subscriber only' content on the LRB Website is currently provided free to subscribers to the print edition of the LRB, the LRB reserves the right to impose a charge for access to some or all areas of the LRB Website without notice.
  26. These terms and conditions are governed by and will be interpreted in accordance with English law and any disputes relating to these terms and conditions will be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales.
  27. The various provisions of these terms and conditions are severable and if any provision is held to be invalid or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction then such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect the remaining provisions.
  28. If these terms and conditions are not accepted in full, use of the LRB Website must be terminated immediately.


Vol. 24 No. 19 · 3 October 2002

Search by issue:

Fond Father

In 1890, two years after his father’s death, Edmund Gosse published a detailed and sympathetic 387-page memoir of his father, The Life of Philip Henry Gosse FRS. If the readers of Edmund Gosse’s Father and Son, published 17 years later, had had access to this work, they would have been in possession of all the other ‘facts’ which Dinah Birch educes to claim that ‘Philip Henry Gosse was not a gloomy monster. He was a courageous and innovative scientist and a thoroughly likeable human being’ (LRB, 19 September). This ‘likeable human being’, however, ‘according to one who knew him well in the later part of his life’ (viz his second wife, quoted in the son’s first book), ‘believed “all that the prophets have spoken" and could not tolerate any departure therefrom, either in himself or others’. It is not surprising that his son, in his account of his liberation from his father’s dogmatism, should have evinced something other than his earlier filial sympathy.

Jacob de Villiers

Italians and Their Mothers

I can set Thomas Laqueur’s mind at rest about the residential practices of the postwar Italian middle classes (LRB, 5 September). My husband comes from the Modena bourgeoisie (his father and grandfather were lawyers) and his parents moved in with his father’s family following their marriage in 1952. It seems to have been largely a matter of course at the time, and things were very much the same in the countryside, as both landowners’ and sharecroppers’ sons brought their wives to live under the family roof. Things haven’t been so quick to change: young marrieds no longer live in the same flat as their parents, but they are unlikely to live very far away. I seem to recall Paul Ginsborg, in Italy and Its Discontents, stating that 90 per cent of Italian men live within 50 km of their mothers. I suspect that the figure is little different for women and their fathers, since people generally marry, and live, close to their roots. The lack of university grants and the ‘open door’ policy on university admissions has certainly played a part in this – as people don’t necessarily shift around the country on leaving school – but it’s also simply a social preference.

Margaret Kearton
Ospitale nel Frignano, Italy


A secret addendum to the Yalta agreement, first published in February 1946, revealed that Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt agreed in February 1945 that ‘in two or three months after Germany has surrendered, and the war in Europe has terminated, the Soviet Union shall enter into the war against Japan on the side of the Allies.’ The war in Europe ended on 8 May, so that the three months envisaged at Yalta were due to expire on 8 August. On 29 May Harry Hopkins reported to Truman that Stalin ‘left no doubt in our minds that he intends to attack during August.’ The Soviet Union promptly declared war on Japan on 8 August, with the Red Army ‘properly deployed on the Manchurian positions’ as promised to Hopkins on 28 May. The US dropped its atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki on 6 and 9 August, respectively. Japan surrendered forthwith. Peter Calvocoressi has remarked that this clinching of the imminent American victory deprived the Russians of all but a token share in the postwar settlement in the Far East. Thus Bruce Kent’s view that the decision to drop the bombs was motivated in part by a desire to demonstrate to the Soviets where power lay may be an overgenerous understatement, rather than a fanciful myth as suggested by Martin Watts (Letters, 19 September).

Michael Jacobsen
Ulverston, Cumbria

Easily Done

In her book Auto da Fay, Fay Weldon is careful not to claim that she coined ‘Go to work on an egg’ (Letters, 19 September). She merely uses the phrase as the title for an account of her work on the TV script for an egg commercial. In fact, it was Francis Ogilvy, then managing director of Mather and Crowther, later Ogilvy Mather, who coined ‘Go to work on an egg.’ He showed it to Harry Ballam (creative manager), who then asked me (group head) what I thought of it. By the time Fay Weldon took over egg advertising the slogan was a given. Her job was to go to work on the egg campaign and come up with entertaining TV commercials on this theme. And she did.

Eugene Sullivan
Epsom, Surrey

Azio Corghi

Ian Thomson (Letters, 19 September) asks about the Italian composer Azio Corghi's opera Gargantua. The opera premiered in Turin in 1984 at the Teatro Regio; sheet music is offered for rent by; no recording of it appears to be available via music search engines, though a CD of the 1993 opera Divara – Wasser und Blut, whose libretto Corghi wrote with José Saramago, is currently on the Marco Polo label. Corghi himself (1937-) is very much alive, having appeared here in the United States in June at a music festival at the University of Cincinnati.

Scott Lahti
Marquette, Michigan

Deep, Deeper, Deepest

David Lindley’s footnote (Letters, 5 September) to Robin Holloway’s masterly Tovey piece makes a nice distinction that will be as welcome to German scholars as it’s puzzling to persons preoccupied with musical matters. Lecturing musicians about the semantics of Innigkeit versus Innerlichkeit is all very well. But once the Germanists have done their job, in what respects are previously misinformed pianists (for instance) to revise their readings of (say) the first of Schumann’s Phantasiestücke, a piece Holloway must have played countless times to himself and his students over the past thirty years? More important for the reception of his history-making essay: is Holloway now to return to the drawing-boards of 1971 and ‘correct’ his own Fantasy-Pieces op.16 wherever he’s ‘misinterpreted’ the Innigkeit of Schumann’s Heine Liederkreis and succumbed to an excess of Innerlichkeit? The point about the ‘Empathy’ of his title is already being made in his first paragraph’s tart reference to ‘career musicology’; and it’s resoundingly confirmed by a phrase in his Brucknerian final sentence (18 lines of it if you ignore an unnecessary fermata). it’s there that he openly acknowledges how far Tovey’s exceptional feats as writer and teacher were prompted by ambitions that were primarily creative. That so fluent and outgoing a piece as his for the LRB achieves such exceptional intimacy with its profound and wide-eared subject is surely a related phenomenon. Inwardness is of course implicit throughout. But if the piece deserves to be remembered as long as any of Holloway’s own compositions, and if we reread it as often as we should, it’s because in our present, shifting and shiftless musical culture it rings out like some mighty carillon.

David Drew
London SW6

Statistically Acceptable?

Peter Conradi (Letters, 19 September) is at a loss to know who compared Iris Murdoch to a ‘water buffalo’. But it was none other than John Bayley. He uses the term in Iris and the Friends to describe what had become her characteristic way of moving in relation to him.

Liz Willis
London W7

She is transcultural

I find myself perplexed by Paul Strohm’s review of my book, Pagans, Tartars, Muslims and Jews in Chaucer’s ‘Canterbury Tales’ (LRB, 11 July). Strohm mentions ‘applying contemporary theory to earlier periods’, but nowhere says that the point of the book is to explore Chaucer in the light of Habermas’s idea of ‘discourse ethics’. Instead, he gives us two pages of his ideas about two of Chaucer’s tales that are discussed in the book: they are interesting in themselves, but highly repetitious of the book’s own arguments. And though he clearly knows postcolonial discourse, he hasn’t yet learned that ‘Muhammadan’ is a term that immediately reveals his own stereotyped thinking: it is, in fact, a classic example of ‘saming’, in which Muslims are made like Christians, who follow a person, not a law.

It’s unfortunate, too, that Strohm thought it appropriate to make remarks about North American academics. He should have found out who the author is. The book is dedicated to Anna Friedman and Nasir Din, the author’s Jewish mother and Muslim father, who married in London in 1942, both immigrants, but British subjects. The author is hardly a North American academic: a multicultural and multiracial British subject, educated in England and the United States, she is transcultural and epitomises the ‘post-colonial’ self that Strohm so ardently wishes had been the subject of the book.

Brenda Deen Schildgen
University of California, Davis

Implosion in the Glens

It wouldn’t be hard to throw together a piece like Christopher Harvie’s (LRB, 5 September) on ‘crises’ in England. In place of the overburdened social services in Scotland, and the crises in Scottish public agencies, one might refer to the recruitment haemorrhage in health, education and emergency services in the South-East; the racial tensions in the North; the lack of vision behind the Dome; and the vulnerability of land too densely settled beside rivers as a result of short-sighted planning policies. Every reader would observe – rightly – that such a piece ignored everything good about England.

Andrew Burnside

Water on the Brain

Jerry Fodor (LRB, 5 September) objects to David Papineau’s use of the distinction between water and H2O as an analogy for the mind/brain distinction. This cannot hold, he says, because we can see perfectly well that there is identity in the case of the former pair, while the mind/brain opposition remains stubbornly distinct. But he is in error about water and H2O. He happily identifies water’s transparency, liquidity, and no doubt also the feel of it, its coolness and all the rest of our sensory acquaintance with H2O, as part of what water is. But this is to establish the pair water/H2O in such a way that it is an analogy for the mind/brain distinction – phenomenal properties are clearly on the left-hand side and the physical description on the right.

My own view is that we get confused about mind/brain ‘identity’ because we forget that in this case it is a part of our own being that is under investigation. Just as we cannot identify ‘H2O’ with the being of water, so, for example, whatever we propose about the neurons that give us the experience of colour could never be an identity statement – for any explanation, however successful in its description, is patently not what it explains. If there is an ‘explanatory gap’ between some future neurophysiological theory about sensory colour and the experience of colour, that gap is the harmless one between language and the real.

Edmond Wright

No Matter

In Short Cuts (LRB, 19 September), Thomas Jones cites Kevin Warwick’s prediction that, courtesy of microchip implants, we will soon be ‘able to relive memories that we didn’t have in the first place’. But I have been doing exactly this all my adult life. It is an instance, I have always believed, of all Art and no matter.

Anthony Fowles
London SE3

All Mouth and …

Sorry, Sanford Gabin (Letters, 5 September). John Connolly, late former governor of Texas, described Bush père as ‘all hat and no cattle’, not ‘big hat, no cattle’. Connolly was the quintessential Texan, so one must go with his version.

Richard Cummings
Bridgehampton, New York

Read anywhere with the London Review of Books app, available now from the App Store for Apple devices, Google Play for Android devices and Amazon for your Kindle Fire.

Sign up to our newsletter

For highlights from the latest issue, our archive and the blog, as well as news, events and exclusive promotions.